The present invention is a device for use in identifying locations and providing a means for validating information. More specifically, the present invention relates to a tubular sleeve, that slidably attaches over a traditional fence post or sign post that is secured in the ground, the internal dimensions of the sleeve being substantially congruent enough with the external dimensions of the fence post or sign post such that rotation of the sleeve about a longitudinal axis of a post is precluded, the sleeve having at least means for validating the location of the sleeve and identifying and measuring data at the sleeve location.
Installation of signs, identification markers and apparatus for supporting validation and identification equipment can be difficult, time consuming and ineffective. Traditionally, when a need for a sign on a post arises, an individual selects a metal sign post, the sign post traditionally having a stretched U-shaped configuration, and either sets the sign post in a predug hole or drives the sign post into the ground, subsequently attaching a sign to the sign post. Sign posts are traditionally metal, but can be comprised of materials such as plastic or fiberglass. Sign posts set in the ground in a hole for such are usually considered permanent sign posts. Digging a hole to insert a permanent sign post takes considerable time and effort and is many times not practical. Furthermore, after installation of the permanent sign post, the volume of the hole remaining around the permanent sign post must be back filled either with the dirt dug out of the hole or with a securing material such as concrete. The conventional method of digging holes for sign posts in order to erect a sign, although practical for large permanent signs, is not practical where time, cost, space and flexibility are of the essence. In addition, changing the means for displaying information, i.e., the sign on the permanent sign post, usually requires the disassembly of a fastening means such as nuts and bolts, screws or nails. Changing just one sign can be very time consuming not to mention when a large amount of signs must be changed. Furthermore, replacement of permanent sign posts set in the ground can be costly and time consuming. When a permanent sign post is knocked down or needs to be adjusted, the process of replacing and/or adjusting usually requires the removal of the existing sign post by redigging the hole or removing the securing material and then replacing the sign post with a new post and refilling the hole.
A conventional method for erecting more temporary sign posts is through the driving into the ground of sign posts. The narrow cross-sectional configurations of these sign posts allow the posts to be easily inserted into the ground. After the sign post is driven into the ground, a sign is secured to the sign post. The sign posts, although economical, are not usually considered aesthetically pleasing.
Although not traditionally used, metal fence posts having a T-shaped cross section could also be used for erecting signs. Throughout the remainder, fence posts and sign posts will be referred to collectively as "posts."
Installation of the temporary sign post by driving it into the ground is more economical than the permanent sign post. The installation of a sign on the temporary sign post, however, is beset with the same costs and inefficiencies as a permanent sign post. The installation of the temporary sign post usually involves the securing of the sign by screws, nuts and bolts, or wire. This method of securing the sign precludes easy removal of the sign from the sign post. This is not very convenient where a sign must be changed regularly.
The signs attached to the posts usually comprise a flat metal. The signs are not very aerodynamic and get blown down or easily twisted in a stiff wind. In addition, because of the sign's flat two-dimensional configuration, the application of information to the sign is limited to no more than two sides of the sign. In order to display information in more than two directions, a second sign must be attached to the post perpendicular to the first sign. This configuration, however, further decreases the aerodynamic stability of the sign post, thereby increasing the likelihood that the sign will be blown down or damaged by the wind.
Conventional methods of designating an intersection or a crossroad are not effective in areas where strong winds exist. The signs constantly get blown down. In addition, a majority of the sign posts used for signs are permanent sign posts. The placement and replacement cost, in both time and money, of conventional permanent sign posts used at an intersection or crossroads is quite high. To avoid these costs, rural governments avoid installing intersection and crossroads signs or limit the installation of permanent sign posts to busier intersections. This practice results in numerous intersections and crossroads existing without any signage to indicate the names of the intersecting roads. While the absence of the signage may not pose a problem to local residents, the lack of signage can readily create harm and/or inconvenience to nonresidents who cannot determine the names of the roads and to the residents if a rescue worker or police vehicle cannot locate the residence being called to perform emergency work because no signs have been installed.
Similarly, conventional signage used in the agricultural industry also fails to be effective and cost efficient. Due to the agronomic complexity of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers and cost of the associated application equipment, more and more producers of crops are turning to custom applicators to apply the pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to their fields. Because applicators are not the people who plant the crop, they must be informed by the producer of the crop regarding the specific crop types and location of the field where specific crops are growing. Crop identification and location, as explained more fully below, has long been a significant issue to producers and pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer dealers and their respective applicators.
Without knowledge of the location of a field, an applicator can accidentally deliver product to the wrong field or even the wrong farm. Such an accident can have catastrophic effects, causing both the affected and unaffected crop to die or not properly mature.
In addition, improper identification of crop type can also lead to catastrophic effects. For example, certain varieties of soybean crops exist and are being further developed that are herbicide tolerant. The different soybean varieties, however, cannot necessarily be distinguished visually by the naked eye. An applicator, therefore, can approach a crop of soybeans with a sprayer full of herbicide and have no way of knowing by looking at the crop whether the soybean crop is herbicide tolerant or not. Application of the herbicide to a non-herbicide tolerant soybean crop would kill the crop. An applicator, thus, must take the time to seek out the producer to determine the crop type. Conveying proper location information and crop identification to the sprayer operators is obviously a critical job.
Value added traits in genetics have location and identification obstacles as well. Producers currently have to keep track of only a handful of crop types. As more specific traits are developed within crop types, producers will have to plant, specifically treat, harvest, store and deliver various assortments of crop types. Beyond being able to deliver the proper grain to the proper processor, very accurate field histories of previous crops and herbicide applications will have to be maintained for proper field selection. No uniform system or device currently exists to deal with these problems.
One conventional way of validating field location is through the installation of a flag in the ground. Specifically, a certain color or type of flag is placed near the field to validate the location of the field. This method of validating a field, however, is not very effective for an applicator because it is usually specific only to a certain farm. Thus, in order for an applicator to know the specific location of certain crops on different farms, the applicator must learn what each flag represents on each farm. This task can become daunting and prone to error when the applicator is servicing a large number of farms and numerous different flags are used to denote field locations or, even more so, when identical flags are used for different crops on different farms. Furthermore, the use of flags as sole designators of field locations is not universal. A producer may use flags to designate location of a field, location of underground power lines, water lines or other features besides field location. An applicator has no consistent universal location on each farm for determining field location.
In addition to being an ineffective means for validating crop location, the conventional method of using flags is also an ineffective means for validating the identity of crop types. There are hundreds to thousands of various types of different crops. Within each crop type there can be hundreds of different varieties. Moreover, each year, more and more different varieties of crop types are introduced. Each variety can require different types or combinations of pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides. Using the conventional flag system to identify crop types, therefore, is not practical because a different flag color or type would have to be used for each crop variety in order to ensure that an applicator knew exactly what crop variety was in the field in order to apply the proper pesticide, fertilizer and/or herbicide. As more flags are used, the likelihood of an error occurring increases because the applicator will have to distinguish between flags that are more similar in color. For example, the difference between burnt orange and rust orange.
Flags are also ineffective because they constantly get blown away, knocked down or damaged by such things as inclement weather or farm equipment. Flags are also not cost effective because they usually are not durable enough to last for more than a few seasons and, thus, must be replaced often. Decreasing this cost effectiveness further is the fact that the flags must be replaced when a new type of crop or crop variety is introduced in the field.
Finally, the conventional method of using a flag to validate a field is also very time consuming. An applicator must meet with each producer prior to applying any product in order to determine what location and identification each flag represents on the farm.
Another conventional method to validate field location and/or identify crop type is to use colored rags on fences. This method is similar to the flag method and suffers from many of the same inadequacies. There is no uniform system for utilizing rags to designate crop location and crop type. An applicator is required to inquire upon each producer as to the meaning of each color. Rags can easily be removed, blown away or fade from inclement weather or misuse. Rags also wear out and need to be replaced quite often
The use of rags, like the use of flags, requires a producer to use a myriad of colors to designate the numerous types and varieties of crops. Similar to the use of flags, the conventional method of using rags to validate crop location and identify crop type is error prone, time consuming and ineffective.
Other conventional methods used to validate crop location and crop type include cardboard and wooden signs. These methods are also inadequate means for validating field location and crop type. No uniform system utilizing wooden or cardboard signs exists for validating crop location and crop type. An applicator must inquire upon each producer as to the meaning behind each color, shape, number or word utilized with a cardboard or wooden sign in order to validate crop location or crop type. Cardboard signs get ruined or blown away and wear out quickly. Wooden signs rot and need to be repainted every time a new crop or crop variety is introduced.
The conventional methods of validating field location and crop type, set forth above, are not desirable. As mentioned, no universal system for utilizing the conventional methods exists. In addition, the conventional methods are not practical because they get blown away, removed, knocked down or destroyed easily. They also do not provide an efficient or effective means for updating information regarding field location or crop type. Furthermore, modification to the conventional methods, for purposes of adding additional means for measuring or validating data, is not possible and/or practical. The conventional methods also do not provide a practical means for downloading information regarding field location, crop type, herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers used or other historical data.